3 Participation of Nonpublic School Children Except where prohibited by State law, equitable participation of children enrolled in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools would be provided in the disadvantaged, handicapped, vocational, and support services areas. Where State law prevents such participation, the Secretary may permit the State to participate, but he shall arrange for such children to receive similar services on an equitable basis and shall pay the cost thereof out of the State's allotment. In addition, a State would provide that title to and control of funds received under this Act and other property derived there from will remain in one or more public agencies. Civil Rights Revenues shared under this Act shall be considered as Federal financial assistance within the meaning of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Transition from Existing Programs - The Act authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary to make, for the period January 1 June 30, 1972, payments to States to assist them in planning for the transition from the system of categorical grants authorized by statutes repealed by this Act to the system of revenue sharing for education authorized by this Act. Effect on Existing Programs Repealed (effective with respect to appropriations for FY beginning after 6/30/72) Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Education of the Disadvantaged School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials Supplementary Educational Centers and Services; Guidance, Strengthening State and Local Educational Agencies Education of the Handicapped Act Part B -- Assistance to States for Education of Handicapped Children The Smith Hughes Act (Vocational Education Act of 1917) Public Law 81-874 Section 3(a) - - Children of persons who reside and work on Federal property Children of persons who reside or work on Federal property Sudden and substantial increases in attendance National Defense Education Act of 1958 Financial Assistance for Strengthening Instruction in Science, 4 Effect on Existing Programs Adult Education Act Repealed (continued) (except for Sec. 309: Special Experimental Demonstration Projects and Teacher Training) Public Law 81-815 (except for sections 9, 10, 14, and 16) Centers and Services to Meet Special Needs of the Handicapped Instructional Media for the Handicapped Special Programs for Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Head Start and Follow Through Emergency School Aid Act (proposed) National Institute of Education (proposed) Cooperative Research Act all higher education legislation (except part B-2 of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965) all library and educational communications legislation Secretary RICHARDSON. This, Mr. Chairman, is the first Congressional hearing on S. 1669, a measure which is of major importance to elementary and secondary education, and of central concern to President Nixon in his efforts to reform and revitalize the structure of government in the United States. In his State of the Union Message last January 22, the President declared: The time has now come in America to reverse the flow of power and resources from the States and communities to Washington, and start power and resources flowing back from Washington to the States and communities, and, more important, to the people all across America. The time has come for a new partnership between the Federal Government and the States and localities—a partnership in which we entrust the States and localities with a larger share of the nation's responsibilities, and in which we share our Federal revenues with them so that they can meet these responsibilities. The concept of the revenue sharing is not new: it was advocated by both presidential candidates in 1964 and in both major party platforms in 1968. What is new and revolutionary is that this administration has enunciated an overall strategy-embracing general return of tax revenues to the States and special revenue sharing in six areas of special national concern. In each of these proposals, we evoke the spirit and the substance of self-determination to preserve it where it exists, to strengthen it where it is weak, and to create the conditions for its reemergence where it has disappeared. Self-determination is the hallmark of revenue sharing. The President has proposed general revenue sharing to correct the increasingly severe fiscal mismatch between States and localities, faced with demands for services which are rapidly outpacing revenues, and the Federal Government, equipped with a faster-growing tax base. Recipients State and local governments would be free to apportion shared revenues among the uses they deemed to be of the highest priority for their citizens. They would no longer be caught in the Federal straitjacket which assumes that what's good for one State is equally beneficial to another. Since approximately 40 percent of local and State revenues are now devoted to education, it is reasonable to expect that education will receive a substantial portion of general revenue income. In addition to the general revenue sharing bill, the President has proposed six special revenue sharing bills, designed to correct the complex and often inefficient way Federal assistance is provided. These bills taken together would consolidate more than 100 existing categorical programs in all areas of government into six broad systems for sharing Federal revenues with States and localities: in education, urban and rural development, manpower, transportation, and law enforcement. But the goal is not the mere simplification of Federal organization charts. The goal is twofold. First, consolidation is critically needed to free the States and localities from strangulation by the bureaucratic redtape required by the scores of individual programs. In spite of similarities among related programs in goals, grantees and ultimate beneficiaries, each program has its own regulations, application forms, reporting requirements, and in many cases its own State plan. Second, special revenue sharing will give the States and localities greater freedom than they now have, to determine their own priorities within broad program areas and to decide how best to meet those priorities. In this respect, special revenue sharing will accomplish a dramatic reversal of the long-term trend toward an ever greater concentration of decisionmaking power in Washington. Although most of the national debate so far has focused primarily on general revenue sharing, I believe that special revenue sharing will have an equally significant long-range impact on the Nation. While general revenue sharing offers the prospect of substantially reducing pressures on State and local tax bases, special revenue sharing offers a new mechanism for Federal-State collaboration in matters of mutual concern. Reform and revitalization of the Federal system will not be accomplished by money alone; the funds must also be accompanied by reform of the decisionmaking process to restore the authority of State and local governments-and this is precisely what special revenue sharing is designed to accomplish. S. 1669, the education revenue sharing bill before the subcommittee today, exemplifies this strategy of governmental reform. It would redefine the Federal role in elementary and secondary education, a redefinition which has become more necessary with the passage of each new categorical program. By delineating broad areas of Federal concern, education revenue sharing would assure that national priorities continue to be met. TREND TOWARD CATEGORIZATION Over the past half century there has been a growing trend toward ever-narrower categories of Federal assistance to elementary and secondary education. The categorical approach dates back to 1917 and the Smith-Hughes Act, the first vocational education legislation. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act continued and expanded this pattern for Federal aid. In response to national concern for strengthened curriculums in science, mathematics, and foreign languages, the NDEA established a series of programs designed to encourage more young people to pursue studies and acquire skills in fields considered vital to the national defense. In subsequent years, a broader range of national educational needs was identified, and Congress passed in rapid succession a series of laws providing special help for the disadvantaged, for the handicapped, to train more teachers, to modernize vocational and technical education, and to provide more books, equipment and technology. Clearly, these programs have had a profound impact on America's educational system. But there is a serious question as to how many more categories can be added to the existing structure without swamping it completely. The Office of Education now administers more than 100 categorical programs. To complicate the picture even further, at least 26 Federal agencies also administer significant categorical programs affecting schools and colleges. Seen from ground level, the jungle of Federal guidelines, regulations, application forms, and evaluation requirements is almost impenetrable. In order to mount a comprehensive program for disadvantaged children, for example, a local school superintendent finds |